[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Basavaraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.11578 OF 2022 (GM-PP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.14493 OF 2020 (LA-KIADB)
IN WP NO.11578/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MARIYAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
2. SHRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
3. SHRI. MAHESH
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
Digitally signed by 4. SMT. MANJULA
ARUNKUMAR M D/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
S
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5. SHRI. SUNESHA
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
6. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
7. SHRI. VENKATARAM
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.550, SY.NO.92,
HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE,
MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 027.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
MYSURU ZONAL OFFICE,
METAGALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
K.R.S. ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 016.
2. M/S. RELI-E-MARG SOFTWARE
CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD
NO.1, 2ND FLOOR,
SAMRAT AND GANGANA COMPLEX
UDAYARAVI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHRI. NARAYAN MANDAYAM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05TH APRIL, 2022 PASSED BY THE
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU IN
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.39 OF 2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-M;
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28TH OCTOBER, 2021 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H; AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
IN WP NO.14493 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SHRI. MAHESH
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTRUE.
3. SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
4. SHRI. SUNESHA
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
5. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
6. SHRI. VENKATARAM
S/O LATE VENKATE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
NO.550, SY.92
HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
MYSURU - 570 023.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
MYSURU - 570 023.
3. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
ZONAL OFFICE,
K.R.S. ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 016.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB),
ZONAL OFFICE,
K.R.S. ROAD,
MYSURU - 570 016.
5. M/S. RELI-E-MARG SOFTWARE
CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,
NO.1, 2ND FLOOR,
SAMRAT AND GANAGANA COMPLEX,
UDAYA RAVI ROAD,
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU - 570 023.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SHRI. NARAYAN MUNDAYAM.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21ST DECEMBER, 2019 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 20TH DECEMBER, 2019 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F10; DECLARE THAT
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER FINAL
TH
NOTIFICATION DATED 26 NOVEMBER, 2005 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G IS VOID; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In writ petition No.11578 of 2022, the petitioners are
challenging the orders dated 05th April, 2022 (Annexure-M)
passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.39 of 2021 by the VI
Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru and Order dated
28th October, 2021 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent
No.1; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondents not to
dispossess petitioners from the land in question.
2. In writ petition No.14493 of 2020, petitioners are
challenging the order dated 21st December, 2019 (Annexure-A)
passed by the respondent No.4 and Order dated 20th
December, 2019 (Annexure-F10) passed by the respondent
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
No.1; inter alia sought for declaration that the entire acquisition
proceedings initiated as per the Final Notification dated 26th
November, 2005 (Annexure-G) is void.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these
petitions are referred to as per their ranking before this Court
in Writ Petition No.14493 of 2020.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
4. The relevant facts for adjudication of Writ Petition
No.14493 of 2020 are as follows:
4.1. Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of late
Venkategowda and the land in question has been granted to
the grandfather of petitioners viz., Bundegowda as per the
order dated 14th March, 1980 passed by the Land Tribunal.
After the demise of the said Bundegowda, the revenue records
in respect of the land in question transferred in favour of his
son late Venkategowda (father of the petitioners). During the
year-1981, the respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board proposed to acquire the land in question to
an extent of 2 acre 20 guntas out of 4 acre 37 guntas in Survey
No.92 of Hootagalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk for
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
industrial purpose. It is also stated that the father of
petitioners viz., late Venkategowda, during the year-1984
borrowed loan from one Mulagi M. Patel by executing a nominal
Sale Deed without delivering the physical possession of the
land. Thereafter, the said late Venkategowda cleared the loan
and as such, the possession of land to an extent of 2 acre 17
guntas in Survey No.92 of Hootagalli Village, remained with late
Venkategowda and his children. Further, it is averred in the
writ petition that, son of the said Mulagi M. Patel viz., H.M.
Patel filed Original Suit Nos.54 of 2004 and 94 of 2004 against
late Venkategowda and others seeking relief of declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the land in question.
Thereafter, the said late Venkategowda and others, being a
defendants in the aforesaid suits filed written statement and
contended that the Sale Deed dated 15th June, 1984 is only a
nominal Sale Deed and as such, the said suits came to be
dismissed on 04th September, 2012.
4.2. It is further stated in the writ petition that the
respondent-KIADB tried to interfere with the possession of late
Venkategowda, father of petitioners in the land in question and
therefore, father of petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2570 of
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
2006. This Court, by order dated 18th August, 2008
(Annexure-C), dismissed the Writ Petition No.2570 of 2006,
holding that the father of petitioners had already instituted civil
suit and therefore he shall agitate his rights over the land in
question in such other forum. It is also stated that the
respondent-KIADB once again tried to interfere with the land in
question by issuing Notifications for acquisition and as such, the
petitioners being the coparceners and are in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the land in question, filed Writ
Petition No.27355 of 2010, challenging the acquisition
proceedings and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on
18th April, 2011, considering the dismissal of the earlier Writ
Petition No.2570 of 2006 filed by late Venkategowda.
4.3 It is further stated that the petitioners continued to
be in possession of the land in question till the year-2017 and
they have not received any notice in respect of passing of
award by the respondent-KIADB, so also, the respondent-
KIADB has not taken possession of the land in question from
the petitioners. In the meanwhile, the respondent-KIADB
issued a Tippani dated 13th January, 2011 (Annexure-D) and
sought to allot the land in question to the respondent No.5-M/s.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
Rali-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Since, the
petitioners were in possession of the land in question, the
respondent No.5 was not able to take the possession of the
same and as such, the respondent No.5 filed Writ Petition
No.8516 of 2017 before this Court, seeking direction to remove
the encroachment in the land in question. This Court, by order
dated 23rd September, 2019 (Annexure-E), disposed of the said
petition with a direction to the respondent No.5 and the
petitioners herein to approach the respondent-KIADB to agitate
their rights. Thereafter, the proceedings were conducted
before the Zonal Office of the respondent-KIADB, Mysuru and
the petitioners have sought for dropping the acquisition
proceedings as per the Resolution dated 27th March, 1999
passed in its 220th Board Meeting. It is also stated in the writ
petition that, without considering the aforementioned aspects,
the respondent-KIADB in order to favour the respondent No.5-
M/s. Rali-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd, tried to
demolish the existing building in the land in question, however,
same was resisted by the petitioners. In the meanwhile, the
Land Acquisition Act was amended and as such, the new Act
namely, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
came into existence.
4.4. It is further case of the petitioners that, as per
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, acquisition proceedings have to be
held as lapsed for the reason that the respondents neither
taken possession nor paid compensation in respect of the land
in question. Accordingly, the petitioners contended in the writ
petition that, without considering the aforementioned aspects,
the respondent-KIADB passed order dated 21st December, 2019
(Annexure-A) and as such, rejected the claim made by the
petitioners and without application of mind, confirmed the
allotment made in favour of the respondent No.5-M/s. Rali-e-
Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, petitioners
have made an application under the Right to Information Act
and pursuant to the same, petitioners came to know that the
land in question is not in the Blue Print Sketch of the
respondent-KIADB as stated in the letter dated 02nd January,
1998 (Annexure-F1) and therefore, the Resolution at Annexure-
F2 was passed by the respondent-KIADB to drop the acquisition
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
proceedings in its 220th Board Meeting held on 27th March,
1999. In furtherance of the same, petitioners came to know
about the allotment of land in question made in favour the
respondent No.5-M/s. Rali-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt.
Ltd. as per Allotment Letter dated 28th October, 2010
(Annexure-F4) and Possession Certificate dated 08th July, 2011
(Annexure-F5). Hence, petitioners presented Writ Petition
No.14493 of 2020, challenging the proceedings of the
respondent-KIADB in respect of acquisition of the land in
question.
5. Relevant facts for adjudication of Writ Petition
No.11578 of 2022 are as follows:
5.1. Petitioners claim to be in possession of the land in
question and the respondent-KIADB issued Show-cause Notice
dated 08th April, 2021 (Annexure-A) under Section 4(1) of the
Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPP Act-
1974') to the petitioners for compliance of the order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.8516 of 2017 decided on 23rd
September, 2019. Pursuant to the same, petitioners addressed
objection/representation dated 12th April, 2021 (Annexures 'B'
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
and 'C'). Thereafter, petitioners filed Writ Petition No.10045 of
2021, seeking direction to the respondent-KIADB to consider
their representation for granting of reasonable time to file
objections to the Show-cause Notice dated 08th April, 2021.
This Court, by order dated 09th July, 2021 (Annexure-D),
disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent-
KIADB to consider the same in accordance with law.
Thereafter, the respondent-KIADB, by proceedings dated 28th
October, 2021 (Annexure-H) passed an order to declare that
the petitioners herein are in un-authorized occupation of the
land in question. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners
preferred appeal in Miscellaneous Appeal No.39 of 2021 before
the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru and the
learned judge, by order dated 05th April, 2022 (Annexure-M),
dismissed appeal preferred by the petitioners. Being aggrieved
by the same, petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.11578 of
2022.
6. Heard Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.11578 of 2022; Sri.
G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioners
in Writ Petition No.14493 of 2020; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent-State; Sri. Ashok N. Naik, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-KIADB; and Sri. A. Madhusudhan
Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-M/S. Reli-e-
Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
7. Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.14493 of 2020
contended that the respondent-KIADB committed an error in
not considering the representation filed by the petitioners dated
16th February, 2016 before the competent Authority for
declaring the acquisition proceedings has lapsed in view of not
taking possession and not to proceed further for which the land
has been acquired by the respondent-Authorities. The principal
submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is
that the respondent-KIADB allotted the land in question in
favour of the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software
Consultants Pvt. Ltd., much before the completion of
acquisition proceedings and got issued the lease in favour of
the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants
Pvt. Ltd., though the said allottee has not paid the entire
allotment cost and therefore, the malafide contention of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
respondent-Authorities is to be considered. It is further argued
by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, though the
acquisition notifications issued were upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, however, the respondent-KIADB before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court suppressed the resolution of the 220th
Board Meeting held on 27th March, 1999, where the Board has
resolved to drop the acquisition proceedings and the said
suppression of material by the respondent-KIADB should be
considered in the present writ petition. It is contended by
learned counsel that the respondents have not produced the
relevant acquisition material before this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in respect of taking possession or making
deposit of compensation as required under law. Accordingly,
he sought for interference of this Court.
8. Referring to the impugned Final Notification dated
26th November, 2005, learned counsel Sri. G.A. Srikante
Gowda, appearing for petitioners argued that the said
notification was issued at the behest of the respondent No.5-
M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd., taking into
consideration the suitability of the land to the respondent No.5
without considering the Resolution of 220th Board Meeting with
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
an intention to help the respondent No.5, which amounts to
collusion, favouritism and fraud in grabbing the land belonging
to the petitioners for the benefit of the respondent No.5. It is
further argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that, though the petitioners have placed sufficient material to
establish that there is no land in existence namely Survey
No.92/2, however, the respondent-Authorities have issued the
impugned Final Notification illegally to facilitate the respondent
No.5 and therefore sought for interference of this Court. It is
also argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that, though the Preliminary Notification was issued during the
year-1997, the possession of the land in question has not been
taken till date and no compensation has been deposited before
the competent Civil Court as required under law, which aspect
of the matter was considered by this Court at paragraph 24 in
Writ Petition No.8516 of 2017, wherein the finding has been
recorded, which would suffice that, no award has been passed
nor compensation has been paid to land owners. Accordingly,
he sought for interference of this Court.
9. It is further argued by Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda,
learned counsel appearing for petitioners that, since the fraud
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
has been committed by the respondent-Authorities against the
petitioners as well as this Court by misrepresenting the facts,
petitioners have challenged the same by filing Writ Petition
No.14493 of 2020 and therefore, writ petition is maintainable
before this Court.
10. Nextly, by referring to the letter dated 02nd
January, 1998 (Annexure-F1), Resolution of the 220th Board
Meeting dated 27th March, 1999 (Annexure-F2), and letter
dated 13th April, 1999 (Annexure-F3), Sri. G.A. Srikante
Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that
the land bearing Survey No.92 has not found place in the Blue
Print of the respondent-KIADB at the time of approval of the
scheme and that apart, the 220th Board Meeting Resolution
envisages for dropping of acquisition proceedings. Accordingly,
he contended that the entire aspect of the matter was not
properly appreciated by the respondent-KIADB in the impugned
order dated 21st December, 2019 (Annexure-A) and as such,
sought for setting-aside the same.
11. Further the learned counsel Sri. G.A. Srikante
Gowda, by referring to the impugned Final Notification dated
26th November, 2005 (Annexure-G) argued that there is no
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
signature on the impugned Final Notification. In this regard,
learned counsel refers to the identical Notifications issued by
the Government, wherein the signature of the Under Secretary
to Government is affixed and therefore, he contended that the
impugned Notification dated 26th November, 2005 (Annexure-
G) is bad in law.
12. By referring to the letter dated 06th March, 2021
(Annexure-L) issued by the respondent-KIADB, Sri. G.A.
Srikante Gowda, appearing for petitioners contended that the
compensation was deposited before the Civil Court belatedly,
despite the fact that the Final Notification was issued on 26th
November, 2005, which would establish the fact that, the
compensation was deposited after two decades from the date
of issuance of preliminary notification. In this regard, he
further contended that, the intention of the respondent-
Authorities is to grant the land in question in favour of the
respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt.
Ltd., much before the passing of the award and depositing the
compensation and such, actions are arbitrary in nature and
therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings is liable to be
quashed. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners Sri. G.A.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
Srikante Gowda, by referring to Memo dated 10th July, 2012
(Annexure-F9), submits that the State Level Single Window
Committee had decided to allot the land in question in favour of
one 'M/s. Shakthi Timbers', however, without any reason in the
absence of final notification, to favour the respondent No.5,
impugned order dated 21st December, 2019 (Annexure-A) is
passed by the respondent-KIADB, which would makes it clear
that the respondent-Authorities are acting arbitrarily. Further,
Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for
petitioners, while referring to Possession Certificate dated 08th
July, 2011 (Annexure-M) agued that the possession of the land
in question was transferred by the respondent-KIADB to the
respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt.
Ltd., and the entire contention of the respondent-Authorities
falsifies the case on record in view of the finding recorded by
this Court in Writ Petition No.8516 of 2017 decided on 23rd
September, 2019. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, in
this regard, refers to Section 28(6) of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short hereinafter referred to
as 'KIAD-Act') and argued that the entire case of the
respondents is by misrepresenting facts before this Court in the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
earlier proceedings and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
as such, the fraud has been committed by the respondents.
13. Referring to Regulation 7 of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board Regulations, 1969, it is
argued by Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, learned counsel for
petitioners that, no material has been produced before this
Court in the present writ petition and in the earlier proceedings
in respect of the notification on the availability of land and
calling for application for allotment of the land in question.
Therefore, he submitted that, in the absence of the same, the
malafide exercise of power by the respondent-Authorities is to
be assessed in the light of absence of fairness and justness on
the part of the respondents, and as such, the entire
proceedings is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners also refers to
the Annexures 'G1' and 'G2' and contended that, as on 15th
April, 2011, no award was passed and the question relating to
the ownership of the land in question has to be determined and
the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the respondent-
authorities by issuing the impugned order.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
14. Lastly, by referring to the judgment of this Court in
Writ Petition No.8516 of 2017 disposed of on 23rd September,
2019, it is argued by the learned counsel Sri. G.A. Srikante
Gowda, appearing for petitioners that, this Court directed the
Development Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Board and further imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the
respondent-KIADB for their lethargic way of functioning and the
said aspect was ignored by the respondent-KIADB and
therefore, the impugned order dated 21st December, 2019
(Annexure-A) passed by the Executive Engineer, Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Board, Mysuru, required to be
quashed. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
15. In order to buttress his arguments with regard to
the contentions raised by the respondents in the statement of
objections on applicability of res judicata in view of earlier
proceedings before this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
learned counsel Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, refers to the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V.
PAPAYYA SASTRY AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.
AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2007 SC 1546 and contended
that, the respondents herein had obtained the order of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
dismissal of the writ petition on the earlier round of litigation
based on the fraud and misrepresentation and during the
earlier proceedings, the petitioners were not aware about the
contentions raised above as to the malfunctioning of the
respondent-KIADB. In respect of the functioning of the Single
Window Committee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the judgment of
this Court in Writ Petition No.2862 of 2007 and connected
petitions disposed of on 23rd April, 2024, particularly referring
to paragraphs 42, 49 and 51 and contended that, the entire
proceedings of the Single Window Committee allotting the land
in question in favour of the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg
Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd., requires interference by this
Court.
16. Learned counsel Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda, argued
that the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.6819 of 2017
decided on 28th September, 2022 is fairly applicable to the case
on hand as the respondent-KIADB has not taken possession of
the land in question for more than two decades after issuance
of the preliminary notification and on account of unreasonable
delay in passing the relevant notification, the acquisition
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners has lapsed
on account of efflux of time.
17. Nextly, Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.11578 of 2022,
argued on similar lines as that of Sri. G.A. Srikante Gowda,
learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition
No.14493 of 2020. In addition to that, learned counsel Sri.
Ajoy Kumar Patil, contended that, possession of the land in
question has been not taken as per the order passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.8516 of 2017. In this regard, he
referred to paragraph 27 of the judgment in Writ Petition
No.8516 of 2017 and argued that the order passed by the Chief
Executive Officer and Executive Member, Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board dated 30th March, 2021 (Annexure-
G) is without jurisdiction.
18. By referring to order dated 30th March, 2021
(Annexure-G) passed by the Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Member, learned counsel appearing for petitioners
argued that the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member
of the respondent-KIADB, has no jurisdiction under Section
25(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
seeking eviction of the petitioners by stating that the
petitioners are the unauthorised occupants and therefore, the
entire proceedings based on the Order dated 30th March, 2021
(Annexure-G) passed by the Chief Executive Officer and
Executive Member requires to be quashed. In this regard,
learned counsel refers to Notification issued by the
respondent-State produced at Annexure-R6 in the statement of
objections and argued that, only the persons specified in the
said Notifications are empowered to issue the eviction notice
under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act-1974. It is also
contended by the learned counsel Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil,
appearing for the petitioners that, no document has been
produced before this Court by the respondent-KIADB in respect
of transfer of land by the State Government to the respondent-
KIADB as required under Section 28(8) of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act and that apart, State
Government alone is empowered to issue Notice for eviction of
the unauthorised occupants and not the respondent-KIADB.
Accordingly, he sought for setting aside the impugned orders in
these petitions.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
19. Nextly, by referring to order dated 28th October,
2021 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent-KIADB, learned
counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the competent
authority in the said order had observed that the possession of
the land was delivered to the respondent-M/s. Reli-e-Marg
Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on 08th July, 2011, however,
there is no material before the said authority to that effect and
the petitioners are in possession of the land in question as
recorded by this Court at paragraph No.24 in Writ Petition
No.8516 of 2017.
20. By referring to the finding recorded by the VI
Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru in the impugned
order dated 05th April, 2022 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal
No.39 of 2021 (Annexure-M), it is argued by the learned
counsel appearing for petitioners that, the learned Trial Judge
has failed to appreciate the material on record in the right
perspective and also given a wrong finding that, the
respondent-KIADB had entered into Lease-cum-Sale Agreement
with the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. on 08th August, 2011, without there being
any material before the Trial Court and therefore, the finding
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
recorded by the learned District Judge and the order dated 28th
October, 2021 (Annexure-H) passed by the incompetent
authority requires to be set-aside.
21. Per contra, Sri. Ashok N. Nayak, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-KIADB submitted that, the writ
petitions are not maintainable on the ground that, the father of
petitioners viz., late Venkate Gowda had filed Writ Petition
No.2570 of 2006, which came to be dismissed and thereafter,
Writ Appeal No.1719 of 2008 filed by the father of the
petitioner came to be dismissed and same is confirmed in SLP
(C) No.28360 of 2010 and that apart, another writ petition filed
by petitioners in Writ Petition No.27355 of 2010 was dismissed
on 18th April, 2011 (Annexure-R5), by imposition of cost and
the said fact would indicate that, the instant writ petition is not
maintainable as the same is hit by res judicata.
22. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
KIADB submits that, the Chief Executive Officer and Executive
Member of the respondent-KIADB being a chief of the Board, is
empowered to issue Notification for eviction of the petitioners in
Writ Petition No.11578 of 2022 as per Section 25 of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act and the State
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
Government has authorised the Development/Executive
Engineer under Section 25(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act to evict the unauthorised occupants. In this
regard, he referred to the Notification dated 24th June, 2020 in
respect of re-designation of the post to the respondent-KIADB
and contended that, the writ petitions are required to be
dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
KIADB by referring to the letter at Annexure-R1, wherein, it is
stated that the land in question was handed over to the
respondent-KIADB under Section 28(8) of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act and as such, he sought for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
23. In order to buttress his arguments, Sri. Ashok N.
Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB,
refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, KIADB,
MYSORE AND ANOTHER vs. ANASUYA BAI (DEAD) BY
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS reported in (2017)
3 SCC 313 and contended that, once the proceedings are
initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, neither Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 would be applicable. Referring to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.
CHANDRASEKARAN AND ANOTHER vs. ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133, it is
argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB
that, once the land is acquired by the State Government under
Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, the acquired land vest with the State Government and
therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the
acquisition proceedings.
24. Sri. A. Madhusudhana, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants
Pvt. ltd., submitted that, as soon as the Notification under
Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act is issued, the land in question
vests with the State Government as per Section 28(5) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act and therefore, the
petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition
proceedings. Emphasising on the proceedings before this
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
acquisition proceedings, which has reached finality, Sri.
Madhusudhan, learned counsel for respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-
Marg Software Consultants Pvt. ltd., argued that the conduct
of the petitioners has to be considered as the petitioners are
not entitled for equitable relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, since they have not approached this Court
with clean hands.
25. By referring to the 81st District Level Single Window
Committee meeting held on 26th September, 2005, Sri. A.
Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5-M/s.
Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the
respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt.
Ltd., had participated in the proceedings and taking into
consideration the requirement of the land to the respondent
No.5, decision was taken by the said Single Window Committee
to allot the same to the respondent No.5 and therefore, the
petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
26. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
the parties and perused the available records. It is forthcoming
from the records that, the land in question bearing Survey
No.92 of Hootagalli Village, Mysuru Taluk and District was
granted in favour of one Bundegowda (grandfather of
petitioners) to an extent of 4 acres 37 guntas. On 08th
February, 1981, the respondent-KIADB acquired 2 acre 20
guntas out of 4 acres 37 guntas of land and had left the
remaining extent of 2 acres 17 guntas from the acquisition. It
is also forthcoming from the writ petitions that, as there is a
dispute between late Venkategowda (father of the petitioners)
with one H.M. Patel, Original Suit Nos.54 of 2004 and 94 of
2004 were filed before the competent Civil Court at Mysuru
based on the Sale deed dated 15th June, 1984 and the said
suits came to be dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondent-
Authorities have issued the Preliminary Notification dated 05th
May, 1997 (Annexure-F11) under Section 28(1) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act and sought to
acquire 2 acres 17 guntas of land in Survey No.92 and other
two adjacent lands for industrial purposes. It is also to be
noted that, as per the 220th Board Meeting of the respondent-
KIADB held on 27th March, 1999, the Board resolved to drop
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
the acquisition proceedings on the ground that, the land in
question has not found place in the Blue Print of the Hootagalli
Industrial Area Development and also the residential houses
are constructed in the land in question, which is situated in
Gram Thana. However the respondent-Authorities have issued
the Final Notification dated 26th November, 2005 (Annexure-G)
under Section 28(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act. It is also to be noted that the father of the
petitioners viz., Venkategowda had challenged the acquisition
proceedings before this Court in Writ Petition No.2570 of 2006
and the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 18th August,
2008. The aforementioned order was confirmed in Writ Appeal
No.1719 of 2008 on 19th July, 2010 (Annexure-R3) and SLP (C)
No.28360 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per
order 22nd October, 2010 (Annexure-R4). It is also pertinent to
mention here that, petitioners herein have challenged the
acquisition proceedings in Writ Petition No.27355 of 2010 and
this Court, by order dated 18th April, 2011 (Annexure-R5)
dismissed the writ petition by imposing cost as writ petition is
not maintainable.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
27. Learned counsel appearing for respondents argued
that the acquisition proceedings have been questioned before
this Court and upheld as per the orders passed by this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the principle of
res judicata is applicable. In this regard, on careful
consideration of the writ papers would indicate that the
petitioners have made application to the respondent-Authorities
under the Right to Information Act and have produced the
documents at Annexure-F series, which would indicate that the
aforementioned documents at Annexure-F series were not
within the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of
conclusion of the proceedings before this Court as well as
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the
maintainability of the present writ petitions have to be
considered as the petitioners are alleging element of fraud
against the respondent-Authorities to help the respondent
No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It is
pertinent to mention here that the respondent-KIADB had
taken decision to drop the acquisition proceedings in their 220th
Board Meeting held on 27th March, 1999 (Annexure-F2),
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
however, Final Notification is issued ignoring the said factual
aspects.
28. On careful examination of Tippani dated 13th
January, 2011 (Annexure-D), wherein the respondent-KIADB
has stated that the Mysuru District Level Single Window
Committee had taken decision on 26th September, 2005 to allot
the land bearing Survey No.92 to an extent of 2 acre 22 guntas
in favour of the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software
Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It is pertinent to mention here that, as on
26th September, 2005, the respondent-Authorities have not
issued the Final Notification under Section 28(4) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, which aspect is to
be considered, since the Final Notification was issued by
respondent-Government under Section 28(4) of the Act on 26th
November, 2005 (Annexure-G). Therefore, what emerges from
the facts of the case is that, even prior to issuance of Final
Notification under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act on 26th November, 2005, the
respondent-Authorities have taken decision to allot the land in
favour of the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software
Consultants Pvt. Ltd., which amounts to arbitrary exercise of
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
power by the respondent-Authorities to help the respondent
No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd., while
concluding the acquisition proceedings. The said aspect of the
matter is further emphasised that the land in question bearing
Survey No.92 to an extent of 2 acre 22 guntas belonged to the
petitioners is not found place in the Blue Print of the Layout as
per the Layout Plan approved on 03rd November, 2010, which is
forthcoming in the Tippani dated 13th January, 2011
(Annexure-D). That apart, this Court, in Writ Petition No.8516
of 2017 disposed of on 23rd September, 2019 (Annexure-E) at
paragraphs 24 and 25 held as follows:
"24. Very strangely, the KIADB has not produced
any record before this Court, except admitting the
allotment and execution of lease cum sale agreement
and has not stated about anything with regard to
possession taken from the owners and it is not the
case of the KIADB that KIADB has cancelled the
allotment made in favour of the petitioner for non
payment of balance amount as alleged by respondent
Nos.7 to 13.
25. Under the provisions of the KIADB Act,
which acquiring property of individual owners, it is the
duty of the KIADB to complete the acquisition by
taking possession and pass award and pay
compensation to the lawful owners who are in
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
possession as on the date of the notifications, based on
the Khata or RTC etc. Admittedly, the KIADB has
neither passed any award nor paid compensation.
Thereby, litigation is created by the KIADB by not
paying compensation to the lawful owners.
(emphasis supplied)
29. This Court, in the aforesaid Writ Petition No.8516 of
2017 had categorically held that the respondent-Authorities
neither passed award nor paid compensation to the petitioners
and further the possession of the land in question was not
taken by the respondent-KIADB. The aforementioned finding is
to be accepted as the petitioners have not challenged the order
of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.8516 of 2017 and same
has reached finality. In the backdrop of these aspects, whether
the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for
respondents that the principle of res judicata or constructive
res judicata is applicable to the case on hand is to be
considered. It is to be noted that the respondent-KIADB issued
Memorandum dated 10th July, 2012 (Annexure-F9), wherein,
the respondent-KIADB resolved to allot the land in question to
one M/s. Shakthi Timbers as per the State Level Single Window
Committee Resolution. On perusal of the report of the
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
Tahsildar dated 25th February, 2012 (Annexure-F7) addressed
to the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru Sub-Division, Musuru
reveals that the land in question is situated adjacent to the
Hootagalli Village Layout and further there are four residential
houses. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
respondent-KIADB issued Possession Certificate dated 08th July,
2011 (Annexure-F5) stating that the possession has been
handed over to the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software
Consultants Pvt. Ltd., which is per se arbitrary and illegal on
the ground that, this Court had already given a finding that the
possession of the land in question is with the petitioners.
30. On careful consideration of Annexure-F2 would
indicate that the land in question has not find place in the Blue
Print and situate in the Hootagalli Gram Thana and therefore,
the respondent-KIADB in its 220th Board Meeting held on 27th
March, 1999 resolved to drop the acquisition proceedings.
However, the said aspect of the matter was ignored by the
respondent-KIADB while issuing the impugned order dated 21st
December, 2019 (Annexure-A). It is not forthcoming from the
submission of the respondent-KIADB as to on what basis the
Final Notification dated 26th November, 2005 (Annexure-G)
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
came to be issued without considering the resolution of the
220th Board Meeting held on 27th March, 1999, where, the
respondent-Board resolved to drop the acquisition proceedings
in respect of the land in question. It is also to be noted that
the Special land Acquisition Officer of the respondent-KIADB
was made known by the Special Deputy Commissioner as per
letter dated 02nd January, 1998 (Annexure-F1) with regard to
non-inclusion of the land in question in the Blue Print of the
original layout plan of the respondent-KIADB in respect of
acquisition proceedings. Having taken note of the
aforementioned aspects as urged by learned counsel appearing
for petitioners and by taking into account the relevant
documents i.e., Annexure-F series in Writ Petition No.14493 of
2020, I am of the view that, those documents have been issued
to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, which
were not produced before this Court in the earlier writ petitions
as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)
No.28360/2010 and therefore, I am of the view that, it is a
clear case of colourable exercise of power by the respondent-
KIADB and the Government to acquire the land in question
belonging to the petitioners to aid/support the cause of the
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt.
Ltd. It is a clear case of fraud committed by the respondent-
KIADB to acquire the property belonging to the petitioners and
to allot the same in favour of the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-
Marg Software Consultations Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, it is
relevant to extract paragraph 26 and 31 in the case of A.V.
PAPAYYA SHASTRI (supra) which reads as under:
"26. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders,
this Court stated;
"It is unrealistic to expect the appellant company to
resist a claim at the first instance on the basis of the
fraud because appellant company had at that stage no
knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by the
claimants. If the Insurance Company comes to know of
any dubious concoction having been made with the
sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation,
and if by that time the award was already passed, it
would not be possible for the company to file a statutory
appeal against the award. Not only because of bar of
limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the
appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be
limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings
made till then.
Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move
for recalling the order on the basis of the newly
discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree,
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No Court or
tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own
order if it is convinced that the order was wangled
through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension
as would affect the very basis of the claim.
The allegation made by the appellant Insurance
Company, that claimants were not involved in the
accident which they described in the claim petitions,
cannot be brushed aside without further probe into the
matter, for, the said allegation has not been specifically
denied by the claimants when they were called upon to
file objections to the applications for recalling of the
awards. Claimants then confined their resistance to the
plea that the application for recall is not legally
maintainable. Therefore, we strongly feel that the
claim must be allowed to be resisted, on the
ground of fraud now alleged by the Insurance
Company. If we fail to afford to the Insurance
Company an opportunity to substantiate their
contentions it might certainly lead to serious
miscarriage of justice".
******
31. The matter can be looked at from a
different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a
competent Court of Law after hearing the parties and an
order is passed in favour of the applicant/plaintiff which
is upheld by all the courts including the final Court. Let
us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss
Special Leave Petition but after granting leave decides
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can
truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of
the Constitution applies. Likewise, the doctrine of
merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by the
courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the
judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not
open to any party to the judgment to approach any
court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the
order. The above principle, however, is subject to
exception of fraud. Once it is established that the order
was obtained by a successful party by practicing or
playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held
legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent
and non est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the
fundamental principle of law and needs no further
elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment,
decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as
nullity, whether by the court of first instance or by the
final court. And it has to be treated as non est by every
Court, superior or inferior."
31. At this stage, it is also relevant to cite the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ODISHA
AND OTHERS SULEKH CHANDRA PRADHAN AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2022 SC 2030, wherein at paragraphs 36 and
37, it is held as under:
"36. That leaves us with the submission of Shri R.
Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel that since the
view taken by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
High Court and the special leave petition challenging the
same has been dismissed, the view of the Tribunal has
become final. In this respect, reliance could be placed on
the judgment of this Court in Kunhayammed v. State of
Kerala and another, wherein this Court has held as
under:
"27. A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may
be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking
order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the
order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order i.e. it
does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave
petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger
so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in
issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the
Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for
there is no law which has been declared. If the order of
dismissal be supported by reasons then also the doctrine
of merger would not be attracted because the
jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate jurisdiction
but merely a discretionary jurisdiction refusing to grant
leave to appeal. We have already dealt with this aspect
earlier. Still the reasons stated by the Court would
attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution if
there is a law declared by the Supreme Court which
obviously would be binding on all the courts and
tribunals in India and certainly the parties thereto. The
statement contained in the order other than on points of
law would be binding on the parties and the court or
tribunal, whose order was under challenge on the
principle of judicial discipline, this Court being the Apex
Court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties
would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view
contrary to the one expressed by this Court. The order
of the Supreme Court would mean that it has declared
the law and in that light the case was considered not fit
for grant of leave.
The declaration of law will be governed by Article
141 but still, the case not being one where leave was
granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The
Court sometimes leaves the question of law open. Or it
sometimes briefly lays down the principle, may be,
contrary to the one laid down by the High Court and yet
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
would dismiss the special leave petition. The reasons
given are intended for purposes of Article 141. This is so
done because in the event of merely dismissing the
special leave petition, it is likely that an argument could
be advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court
has to be understood as not to have differed in law with
the High Court."
37. It is thus clear that a mere dismissal of the special
leave petition would not mean that the view of the High
Court has been approved by this Court. As such, the
contention in that regard is rejected.
(emphasis supplied)
32. In the light of the aforementioned judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the contention
raised by learned counsel appearing for respondents that the
land once acquired cannot be restored to the land owners and
therefore principle of res judicata is applicable to the present,
cannot be accepted and as such, the judgments referred to by
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB are not
applicable to the case on hand. It is also to be noted that,
immediately after issuance of Preliminary Notification dated
05th May, 1997 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Act, the respondent-KIADB had taken a
decision in its 220th Board meeting held on 27th March, 1999
(Annexure-F2) to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
the land in question, however, after a belated period of six
years, issued Final Notification dated 26th November, 2005
(Annexure-G) during the year-2005. This fact would makes it
clear that the respondent-Authorities have no intention to
acquire the land of the petitioners however the cause for
issuance of Final Notification is to facilitate the respondent
No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt Ltd. It is also
forthcoming from the perusal of Endorsement dated 15th April,
2011 (Annexures-G1) and letter dated 26th August, 2011
(Annexure-G2) that the possession of the land in question has
not been taken and award has not been passed. Perusal of the
letter dated 06th March, 2021 (Annexure-L) would indicate that
the respondent-KIADB had taken decision to deposit
compensation before the competent Court after an inordinate
delay of more than two decades from the date of issuance of
the acquisition notifications. It is well settled principle in law
that, unless the passing of award and compensation is
deposited before the competent Court, any allotment made in
favour of third party much less the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-
e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd., in the present case is
bad in law. The aforementioned aspect makes it clear that the
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
respondent-KIADB suppressed the entire facts on record in the
earlier proceedings before this Court as well as before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and have acted arbitrarily. Accordingly,
an element of fraud is forthcoming from the documents
narrated above and same would substantiate that the
respondent-Authorities being an instrumentality under Article
12 of the Constitution of India, have not followed the provisions
contained under the KIAD Act and the settled principle of law
by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the
acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners have made
out a case for interference in these writ petitions to interfere
with the acquisition proceedings as the respondents have not
made out a case as to bring home their actions within the rule
of principles of law.
33. It is also to be noted that the entire discussion
made by the competent authority while passing the impugned
order dated 21st December, 2019 (Annexure-A) is without
considering the original records and the entire discussion made
by the respondent-KIADB in the said order is arbitrary in nature
and to help the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software
Consultants Pvt. Ltd., in allotment of the land in question. In
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
this regard and even with regard to the competency of the
Officer to pass the impugned order in the present case, the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt.
Ltd., cannot be accepted as the same is contrary to judgment
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8516 of 2017.
34. Insofar as the acquisition proceedings are
concerned, it is not in dispute that the Preliminary Notification
was issued on 05th May, 1997 (Annexure-F11) and Final
Notification came to be issued on 26th November, 2005
(Annexure-G) and that apart the compensation was deposited
before the competent Civil Court as per letter dated 06th March,
2021 (Annexure-L) after a period of more than two decades
and the said aspect makes it clear that the respondent-
Authorities have not acted within a reasonable period.
Therefore, the entire acquisition proceeding requires to be set-
aside. In this regard, it is relevant to follow the dictum of this
Court in the case of THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION
OFFICER AND OTHERS vs. SRI. K.B. LINGARAJU AND
OTHERS made in Writ Appeal No.6819 of 2017 decided on 28th
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
September, 2022, wherein at paragraph 9 to 12, it is held as
under:
"9. We have considered the submissions made
on both the side and have perused the record. The
Supreme Court in M.NAGABHUSHANA vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA has held that the KIAD Act is a self
contained code and is a law relating to acquisition of
land for public purpose and for payment of
compensation. It was further held that once the
proceedings for acquisition of land is initiated under the
KIAD Act, the provisions under Section 11A of the Act of
1894 do not apply to the acquisition under the KIAD Act.
The aforesaid decision was relied upon in SLAO, KIADB
MYSORE vs. ANASUYA BAI DEAD BY LRS. Thus, it is
evident that the Act is a self contained code and the
time limits prescribed under the Act of 1894 do not
apply in respect of the land acquired under the KIAD
act. The proceedings under the KIAD Act cannot be held
to have been lapsed if the award is not passed within a
period of two years in view of the timeline prescribed
under Section 11A of the Act of 1894.
10. We are aware that the KIAD Act does not
prescribe any time limit for conclusion of the proceeding
and a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs.
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
OTHERS which has been subsequently adverted to in
BANGALORE DEVELOPMETN AUTHORITY AND
ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
ANOTHERS has held that the provisions of Section 11-A
of the Act of 1894 cannot be read into the provisions of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976.
11. It is well settled in law that the right to hold
the property is a constitutional right guaranteed under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. No citizen can
be deprived of his property without following due
process of law. It is well settled legal proposition that
where a statute does not provide for time limit of
performance of an act, such act has to be preformed
within a reasonable time and what would be the
reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and
circumstances of the cases. (See: MEHER RUSHI
DALAL vs. UNION OF INDIA, P.K. SREEKANTAN vs.
P. SREEKUMARAN NAIR and K.B. NAGUR vs. UNION
OF INDIA). Therefore, in the facts of the case, we
have to ascertain whether the acquisition proceedings
initiated by KIADB is vitiated on account of inordinate
delay in conclusion of the same.
12. However, in the instant case, the
preliminary notification was issued on 15.09.2000
whereas, the final notification under Section 28(4) of the
KIAD Act was issued on 13.05.2005.. Event after a
period of 7 years from the date of decision of the
Division Bench of this Court, i.e., on 16.12.2010, no
action was taken by KIADB to conclude the proceeding
of land acquisition. No explanation has been offered for
the delay of 7 years in concluding the proceeding which
is fatal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge in the facts
of the case and in the absence of the any explanation on
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
behalf of the appellants for the delay in concluding the
land acquisition proceedings has rightly held that the
land acquisition proceedings insofar as it pertains to
lands of the respondents have lapsed on account of
efflux of time.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any ground to divert with the view taken by the learned
Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed."
35. It is also pertinent to mention here that the purpose
of the respondent-KIADB is to facilitate the formation of
industrial establishment and development and in this regard, it
is the duty of the respondent-Authorities to acquire the
property and the duty cast on the respondent-KIADB as per the
KIAD Act is nothing to do with granting of clearance under the
Facilitation Act. The object of the Facilitation Act is to provide
for grant of approvals/clearances and such approval or
clearances would not lead to and inference that the
respondent-KIADB would have to initiate the acquisition
proceeding whenever an applicant/investor like the respondent
No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd. seeks
allotment of the land in question. The acquisition of the land by
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
the State Government is by exercising its power under eminent
domain and the State Government has to exercise its sovereign
power to initiate acquisition proceedings for public purpose only
and not to help or support the firms like the respondent No.5
herein. Therefore, the entire exercise of the respondent-
Authorities in the present case would contravene the provisions
under Section 28 and 29 of the KIAD Act as well as usurping
the jurisdiction of the State Government to facilitate the
respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt.
Ltd. In that view of the matter, the entire action of the
respondent-Authorities to acquire the land in question requires
to be set-aside. In this regard, the judgment referred to by the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
36. In Writ Petition No.11578 of 2022, petitioners have
challenged the order dated 05th April, 2022 (Annexure-M)
passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.39 of 2021 on the file of the
VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru and the order
dated 28th October, 2021 (Annexure-H) passed by the
respondent-KIADB. The aforementioned proceedings are
arising out of the eviction proceedings initiated against the
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
petitioners by the respondent-KIADB. Taking into consideration
the forgoing reasons, as I have arrived at a conclusion that the
entire acquisition proceedings have to be quashed on the
ground of element of fraud being committed by the
respondent-KIADB to acquire the land in question to facilitate
the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants
Pvt. Ltd., I am of the view that the entire finding recorded in
Miscellaneous Appeal No.39 of 2021 (Annexure-M) and the
order dated 28th October, 2021 (Annexure-H) requires to be
quashed as even according to the respondent-KIADB, no
possession was taken from the petitioner/land owners and
therefore, the petitioners cannot be considered as unauthorised
occupants under the provisions of Public Premises Act-1974.
In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.P. CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU
(DEAD) BY LRS. vs. JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND
OTHERS reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1, wherein at paragraphs 5
and 6 reads as under:
"5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent
error. The short question before the High Court was
whether in the facts and circumstances of this case,
Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went
haywire and made observations which are wholly
perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that
"there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to
court with a true case and prove it by true evidence".
The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed
to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an
engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The
courts of law are meant for imparting justice between
the parties. One who comes to the court, must come
with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more
often than not, process of the court is being abused.
Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and
other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the
court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal
gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a
person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right
to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out
at any stage of the litigation.
6. The facts of the present case leave no manner of
doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by
playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate
deception with the design of securing something by
taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in
order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended
to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk
with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the
court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on
his own volition, executed the registered release deed
(Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had
paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal
Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the
suit for the partition of the property on the ground that
he had purchased the property on his own behalf and
not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and
even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is
tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not
agree with the observations of the High Court that the
appellants-defendants could have easily produced the
certified registered copy of Ex. B-15 and non-suited the
plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound
to produce all the documents executed by him which are
relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital
document in order to gain advantage on the other side
then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as
well as on the opposite party."
37. In the case of MEGHMALA AND OTHERS vs. G.
NARASIMHA REDDY reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5281 at
paragraphs 28 to 36, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"Fraud/Misrepresentation:-
28. It is settled proposition of law that where an
applicant gets an order/office by making
misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent
authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of
the law.
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs.
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Others AIR
1994 SC 853). In Lazarus Estates
Ltd. v. Beasley 1956 All. E.R.349), the Court
observed without equivocation that "no
judgment of a court, no order of a Minister,
can be allowed to stand if it has been
obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels
everything."
29. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial
Corporation. v. M/S. GAR Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2 SCC
647, this Court observed that a writ court, while
exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to
prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are
obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity
is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions
and new subtleties invented to evade law."
30. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers.
AIR 1992 SC 1555], it has been held as under:
"20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the
most solemn proceedings in any civilised system
of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of
human conduct."
31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra
Singh & Others AIR 2000 SC 1165, this Court observed
that "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et
jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim
which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.
32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases
is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the
fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or
made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
Court should not perpetuate the fraud.
(See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School
Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC
655; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4)
SCC 100]; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State
of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing
Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri Chemicals Industries
Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co. AIR 2007 SC 2798;
and Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC
751].
33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of
an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn
proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of
deliberate deception with a design to secure something,
which is otherwise not due. The expression "fraud"
involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person
deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.
[Vide Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Admnistration AIR 1963 SC
1572; Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P)
Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550; State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra
Rao (2005) 6 SCC 149; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12
SCC 481; and Central Bank of India v. Madhulika
Guruprasad Dahir (2008) 13 SCC 170]
34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed
seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to
deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property
would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and
deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema
to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with
fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application
of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is
proved when it is shown that a false representation has
been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its
truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or
false. Suppression of a material document would also
amount to a fraud on the court. [Vide S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (1994) 1 SCC 1;
Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family
Trust [(1996) 3 SCC 310; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri
Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan Deen v. Preeti
Lal [(2002) 1 SCC 100; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board
of High School & Intermediate Education (2003) 8 SCC
311; and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2004) 3
SCC 1]
35. In Kinch v. Walcott (1929 AC 482, it has been
held that: "... mere constructive fraud is not, at all
events after long delay, sufficient but such a judgment
will not be set aside upon mere proof that the judgment
was obtained by perjury".
Thus, detection/discovery of constructive fraud at a
much belated stage may not be sufficient to set aside
the judgment procured by perjury.
36. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial
proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages
gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an
eventuality the questions of non-executing of the
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res
judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material
fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every
court has an inherent power to recall its own order
obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est."
38. Following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforementioned cases, though the respondent-
KIADB had taken decision to drop the acquisition proceedings
as per their 220th Board Meeting held on 27th March, 1999, had
issued Final Notification dated 26th November, 2005 (Annexure-
G) during the year-2005 at the instance of the respondent
No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and the
District Level Single Window Committee had taken a decision to
allot the land in question to the respondent No.5-M/s. Reli-e-
Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd, I am of the opinion that,
interference be called for in these writ petitions. Be that, as it
may, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed on the
ground that the possession of the land in question has not been
taken and deposit of compensation before the competent Civil
Court was made as per letter dated 06th March, 2021
(Annexure-L), after a delay more than two decades and the
said aspect of the matter was ignored by the respondent-KIADB
while issuing the impugned order dated 21st December, 2019
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
(Annexure-A). Therefore, petitioners have made out a case for
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and I
am of the considered opinion that the entire action of the
respondent-Authorities to acquire the land in question
belonging to petitioners is to allot the same to the respondent
No.5-M/s. Reli-e-Marg Software Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) Writ Petition No.11578 of 2022 allowed;
b) Writ Petition No.14493 of 2020 allowed;
c) Order dated 05th April, 2022 (Annexure-M)
passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.39 of 2021
on the file of the VI Additional District and
Special Judge, Mysuru and order dated 28th
October, 2021 (Annexure-H) passed by the
respondent-KIADB, which are challenged in Writ
Petition No.11578 of 2022 are hereby quashed;
d) Order dated 21st December, 2019 (Annexure-A)
passed by the respondent-KIADB and Order
dated 20th December, 2019 (Annexure-F10)
passed by the respondent No.1, which are
challenged in Writ Petition No.14493 of 2020
are hereby quashed;
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50298
WP NO.11578 OF 2022
C/W
WP NO.14493 OF 2020
HC-KAR
e) Consequently, the entire acquisition proceedings
as per Final Notification dated 26th November,
2005 in respect of the land bearing Survey
No.92 measuring 2 acre 20 guntas of Hootagalli
Village, Mysuru Taluk is hereby declared as void
and contrary to law.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56
